Cover not available
Part of
Re-Assessing Modalising Expressions: Categories, co-text, and context
Edited by Pascal Hohaus and Rainer Schulze
[Studies in Language Companion Series 216] 2020
► pp. 79–108

Chapter 4
Not just frequency, not just modality

Production and perception of English semi-modals

| Universität Rostock
| Universidade de Vigo
We review reduction and contraction in modalizing expressions of the type V-to-Vinf from the perspective of production, perception and mental representation. A corpus study of spoken American English shows reduction/contraction as a continuous process which is subject to phonological and communicative constraints. Generally, reduction (articulatory ease) is restricted by a tendency to retain cues to morphological structure (explicitness). For perception, a word-recognition experiment shows that listeners use probabilities to cope with reduction; reduction also promotes ‘chunking’, i.e. accessing frequent sequences as single units. The combined evidence suggests that ‘chunking’, reduction and contraction are not a self-propelled process, even given high frequency or semantic bleaching. Rather, they are subject to intuitive negotiations in speaker-hearer interaction. Methodologically, we make a case for triangulating corpus and experimental data.
Keywords: semi-modals, chunking, phonetic reduction, contraction, entrenchment
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Modality, to-infinitives and V-to-Vinf as a modalizing construction
    • 1.2The role of co(n)text: Speech-internal vs. speech-external factors
    • 1.3Converging evidence: Production and perception
  • 2.Corpus study: Realizations of frequent V-to-Vinf items in speech
    • 2.1 Realizations of have to / used to
      • 2.1.1Fricative devoicing
      • 2.1.2 /t/-lenition
    • 2.2Realizations of trying to / need to
  • 3.Experimental study: Chunking and frequency information in speech perception
    • 3.1Design and method
    • 3.2Results and interpretation
  • 4.Synthesis and discussion
    • 4.1Not just frequency
    • 4.2Not just modality
    • 4.3 Converging evidence and the role of reanalysis
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.216.04lor
References

References

Aarts, Bas, Wallis, Sean & Bowie, Jill
2015 Profiling the English verb phrase over time: Modal patterns. In Developments in English: Expanding Electronic Evidence, Irma Taavitsainen, Merja Kytö, Claudia Claridge & Jeremy Smith (eds), 48–76. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin
2009  Seem and evidentiality. Functions of Language 16(1): 63–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angouri, Jo
2018 Quantitative, qualitative, mixed or holistic research? Combining methods in linguistic research. In Research Methods in Linguistics, 2nd edn, Lia Litoselitti (ed.), 35–55. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Arnon, Inbal & Cohen Priva, Uriel
2013 More than words: The effect of multi-word frequency and constituency on phonetic duration. Language and Speech 56(3): 349–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnon, Inbal & Snider, Neal
2010 More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 62: 67–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arppe, Antti, Gilquin, Gaëtanelle, Glynn, Dylan, Hilpert, Martin & Zeschel, Arne
2010 Cognitive Corpus Linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora 5(1): 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth, Danielle
2019 Effects of average and specific context probability on reduction of function words BE and HAVE . Linguistics Vanguard 5(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berglund, Ylva & Williams, Christopher
2007 The semantic properties of going to: Distribution patterns in four subcorpora of the British National Corpus. In Corpus Linguistics 25 Years On, Roberta Facchinetti (ed.), 107–120. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward
1999 The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice
2018 Entrenchment from a psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic perspective. In Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning, Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), 129–152. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C.
2004 You wanna consider a constructional approach towards wanna-contraction? In Language, Culture, and Mind, Michel Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds), 479–491. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight
1980 WANNA and the gradience of auxiliaries. In Wege zur Universalienfor-schung: Sprachwissenschaftliche Beiträge zum 60. Geburtstag von Hansjakob Seiler, Gunter Brettschneider & Christian Lehmann (eds), 292–299. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Broadbent, Judith M. & Sifaki, Evi
2013  To-contract or not to-contract? That is the question. English Language and Linguistics 17(3): 513–535. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2003a Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Vol. 2, Michael Tomasello (ed.), 145–167. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L.
2003b Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph & Richard Janda (eds), 602–623. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L.
2006 From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4): 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Fleischmann, Suzanne
1995 Modalitiy in grammar and discourse: An introductory essay. In Modality in Grammar and Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 32], Joan Bybee & Suzanne Fleischman (eds), 1–14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Moder, Carol Lynn
2017 Chunking and changes in compositionality in context. In The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives, Marianne Hundt, Sandra Mollin & Simone E. Pfenninger (eds), 148–170. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William
1994 The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert, Depraetere, Ilse & Lesuisse, Mégane
2019 The necessity modals have to, must, need to, and should: Using n-grams to help identify common and distinct semantic and pragmatic aspects. Constructions and Frames 11(2): 220–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, Peter
2009 Modals and Quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daugs, Robert
2017 On the development of modals and semi-modals in American English in the 19th and 20th centuries. In Big and Rich Data in English Corpus Linguistics: Methods and Explorations, Turo Hiltunen, Joe McVeigh & Tanja Säily (eds). Helsinki: VARIENG. [URL] (2 June 2020).Google Scholar
Forthcoming. Contractions, constructions and constructional change: Investigating the constructionhood of English modal contractions from a diachronic perspective. To appear in Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar, Ilse Depraetere, Bert Cappelle & Martin Hilpert (eds) Amsterdam John Benjamins
Davies, Mark
2008- The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). 450 million words, 1990-present. [URL] (1 April 2016).Google Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse
2015 Categorization principles of modal meaning categories: A critical assessment. Anglophonia 19. [URL] (2 June 2020).Google Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse & Reed, Susan
2006 Mood and modality in English. In The Handbook of English Linguistics, Bas Aarts & April McMahon (eds), 269–290. Malden MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik & Cuyckens, Hubert
2005 Pragmatic strengthening and the meaning of complement constructions: The case of like and love with the to-Infinitive. Journal of English Linguistics 33(1): 3–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Englebretson, Robert, Chafe, Wallace L., Meyer, Charles, Thompson, Sandra A. & Martey, Nii
2000–2005 Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Parts 1–4. [URL] (1 December 2013). Google Scholar
Duffley, Patrick
2006 The English Gerund-participle: A Comparison with the Infinitive. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Egan, Thomas
2008 Non-finite Complementation: A Usage-based Study of Infinitive and -ing Clauses in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam & Baayen, R. Harald
2007 The comprehension of acoustically reduced morphologically complex words: The roles of deletion, duration and frequency of occurrence. In Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Saarbrücken, Jürgen Trouvain & William J. Barry (eds), 773–776.Google Scholar
Ernestus, Miriam & Warner, Natasha
2011 An introduction to reduced pronunciation variants. Journal of Phonetics 39: 253–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam, Baayen, R. Harald & Schreuder, Rob
2002 The recognition of reduced word forms. Brain and Language 81: 162–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga
2015 The influence of the grammatical system and analogy in processes of language change: The case of the auxiliation of HAVE-TO once again. In Studies in Linguistic Variation and Change: From Old to Middle English, Fabienne Toupin & Brian Lowrey (eds), 120–150. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Fox Tree, Jean E. & Clark, Herbert H.
1997 Pronouncing ‘the’ as ‘thee’ to signal problems in speaking. Cognition 62: 151–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frank, Stefan L. & Willems, Roel M.
2017 Word predictability and semantic similarity show distinct patterns of brain activity during language comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 32(9): 1192–1203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gahl, Susanne & Garnsey, Susan M.
2004 Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language 80(4): 748–775. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle & Gries, Stefan T.
2009 Corpora and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art review. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5(1): 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Steven, Carvey, Hannah & Hitchcock, Leah
2002 The relation between stress accent and pronunciation variation in spontaneous American English discourse. Proceedings of the International Speech Communication Association Workshop on Prosody and Speech Processing 2002 , 351–354.
Hartsuiker, Robert J. & Moors, Agnes
2018 On the automaticity of language processing. In Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning, Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), 201–226. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth C.
2003 Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horch, Stephanie
2019 Complementing corpus analysis with web-based experimentation in research on World Englishes. English World-Wide 40(1): 24–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jäger, Verena
2018 Expressions of Non-epistemic Modality in American English: A Corpus-based Study on Variation and Change in the 20th century. PhD dissertation, Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
Jurafsky, Daniel, Bell, Alan, Fosler-Lussier, Eric, Girand, Cynthia & Raymond, William
1998 Reduction of English function words in Switchboard. Proceedings of ICSLP-98 7: 3111–3114.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel, Bell, Alan, Gregory, Michelle & Raymond, William D.
2001 Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure [Typological Studies in Language 45], Joan L. Bybee & Paul Hopper (eds), 229–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kapatsinski, Vsevolod & Radicke, Joshua
2009 Frequency and the emergence of prefabs: Evidence from monitoring. In Formulaic Language. Vol. II: Acquisition, Loss, Psychological Reality, Functional Explanations [Typological Studies in Language 83], Roberta Corrigan, Edith A. Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali & Kathleen Wheatley (eds), 499–520. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred G.
2000 Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George
1970 Global rules. Language 46(3): 627–639. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian & Smith, Nicholas
2009 Change in Contemporary English. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, Björn
1990 Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H and H theory. In William J. Hardcastle & Alain Marchal (eds.), Speech Production and Speech Modelling, 403–439. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, David
2013a Contractions of English Semi-Modals: The Emancipating Effect of Frequency. NIHIN Studies. Freiburg: Universitätsbibliothek Freiburg.
2013b From reduction to emancipation: Is gonna a word? In Corpus Perspectives on Patterns of Lexis [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 57], Hilde Hasselgård, Jarle Ebeling & Signe Oksefjell Ebeling (eds), 133–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020 Converging variations and the emergence of horizontal links: to-contraction in American English. In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language 27], Lotte Sommerer & Elena Smirnova (eds), 243–274. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, David & Tizón-Couto, David
2017 Coalescence and contraction of V-to-Vinf sequences in American English – Evidence from spoken language. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Advance online publication. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 Chunking or predicting – Frequency information and reduction in the perception of multi-word sequences. Cognitive Linguistics 30(4): 751–784. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian
2017 From priming and processing to frequency effects and grammaticalization? Contracted semi-modals in Present-Day English. In The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives, Marianne Hundt, Sandra Mollin & Simone E. Pfenninger (eds), 191–212. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morita, Hisashi
2012 Unification of the semantics of the infinitive in English. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies 45: 31–52.Google Scholar
Neels, Jakob
2015 The history of the quasi-auxiliary use(d) to: A usage-based account. Journal of Historical Linguistics 5(2): 177–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, Nadja
2014 From contraction to construction? The recent life of ’ll . In Late Modern English Syntax, Marianne Hundt (ed.), 77–89. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank Robert
2001 Mood and Modality. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pitt, Mark A.
2009 The strength and time course of lexical activation of pronunciation variants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 35(3): 896–910.Google Scholar
Pitt, Mark A., Dilley, Laura & Tat, Michael
2011 Exploring the role of exposure frequency in recognizing pronunciation variants. Journal of Phonetics 39(3): 304–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K.
1997 The morpholexical nature of English to-contraction. Language 73: 79–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ranbom, Larissa. J. & Connine, Cynthia M.
2007 Lexical representation of phonological variation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 57(2): 273–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, William D., Dautricourt, Robin & Hume, Elizabeth
2006 Word-internal /t,d/ deletion in spontaneous speech: Modeling the effects of extra-linguistic, lexical, and phonological factors. Language Variation and Change 18: 55–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patterson, David & Connine, Cynthia M.
2001 Variant frequency in flap production: A corpus analysis of variant frequency in American English flap production. Phonetica 58: 254–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rudnicka, Karolina
2019 The Statistics of Obsolescence: Purpose Subordinates in Late Modern English. NIHIN Studies. Freiburg: Universitätsbibliothek Freiburg.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg
2010 Does frequency in text really instantiate entrenchment in the cognitive system? In Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven Approaches, Dylan Glynn & Kerstin Fischer (eds), 101–133. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning, Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), 9–36. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten
2009 A Typology of Purpose Clauses [Typological Studies in Language 88]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schönefeld, Doris
2011 Introduction: On evidence and convergence of evidence in linguistic research. In Converging Evidence: Methodological and Theoretical Issues for Linguistic Research [Human Cognitive Processing 32], Doris Schönefeld (ed.), 1–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seyfarth, Scott
2014 Word informativity influences acoustic duration: Effects of contextual predictability on lexical representation. Cognition 133(1): 140–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shockey, Linda
2003 Sound Patterns of Spoken English. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simpson, Greg B., Peterson, Robert R., Casteel, Mark A. & Burgess, Curt
1989 Lexical and sentence context effects in word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 15(1): 88–97.Google Scholar
Sosa, Anna Vogel & MacFarlane, James
2002 Evidence for frequency-based constituents in the mental lexicon: Collocations involving the word of . Brain and Language 83(2): 227-236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tizón-Couto, David & Lorenz, David
2018 Realisations and variants of have to: What corpora can tell us about usage-based experience. Corpora 13(3): 371–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tucker, Benjamin V.
2011 The effect of reduction on the processing of flaps and /g/ in isolated words. Journal of Phonetics 39(3): 312–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van de Ven, Marco & Ernestus, Mirjam
2017 The role of segmental and durational cues in the processing of reduced words. Language and Speech 61(3): 358–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verplaetse, Heidi
2003 What you and I want: A functional approach to verb complementation of modal WANT TO. In Modality in Contemporary English, Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug & Frank Robert Palmer (eds), 151–189. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, Marjolijn
1999  To infinitives. In Issues in Cognitive Linguistics: Proceedings of the International Cognitive Linguistics Conference 1993, Leon Stadler & Christoph Eyrich (eds), 505–526. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, Simon N.
2006 Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R. Boca Raton FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra
2011 The grammaticalization of modality. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds), 595–604. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Diessel, Holger
2023. The Constructicon, DOI logo
Levshina, Natalia & David Lorenz
2022. Communicative efficiency and the Principle of No Synonymy: predictability effects and the variation ofwant toandwanna. Language and Cognition 14:2 ► pp. 249 ff. DOI logo
TIZÓN-COUTO, DAVID
2022. A multivariate account of particle alternation after bare-formtryin native varieties of English. English Language and Linguistics 26:4 ► pp. 645 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 december 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.